render_ir_fragment

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a rendering operation with JSON output, which implies a read-only-ish rendering action, but it does not mention error behavior, output shape details beyond JSON, or side effects. That is adequate but not richly transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, well-constructed sentence states exactly what the tool does, with no filler and no repetition of schema. Each phrase earns its place: render, typed IR, one top-level definition, JSON.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The two-input schema and simple scope are well documented, and the description makes the tool easy to invoke. However, because there is no output schema and no annotation context, the description leaves the structural shape of the returned JSON unspecified; describing the IR is not enough to make the output fully predictable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, covering both required parameters. The description does not add additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but it reinforces the idea that 'name' refers to a top-level definition in the .hird file. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Render') and a clear resource ('the typed IR of one top-level definition') plus a concrete output format ('as JSON'). It is clear and self-contained, though it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools such as lookup_definition or infer_type.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of the listed alternatives, nor any exclusions or preferred conditions. The phrase 'one top-level definition' constrains scope, but it does not tell an agent how to choose between this and sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.